Friday, January 21, 2011

So, I am issuing this request. The Republicans want to terminate the Federal Department of Education. Can you give reasons why it should be kept alive? (The 2010 budget for the Dept. is $3.6 Billion. )

SPARTY'S first answer:

I'm assuming that your question assumes the legitimacy of a federal role in education but questions the need for a separate department rather than a sub-cabinet office incorporated into another department such as Health and Human Services. With that, these are the reasons why I support a Department of Education:

1. It places education at the table when decisions are made in the executive branch

2. It gives education a position of importance in dealing with Congressional authorizations and appropriations that it wouldn't otherwise have.

14 comments:

Sparty
said...

I've responded to this issue by email but here's a comment on the general issue of reducing federal spending. I'll believe the GOP congressional leaders are serious about the issue when they call for the end to all farm subsidies.

Do you mean the big agricultural corporation subsidies! Here's one good reason why the Dept of Education should be kept alive: the educational standards need to lift in the US. It should not be determined at the school district or even state level what kind of education a child will receive. In a country as wealthy and successful, everyone should receive a decent level of education, and that's where the Federal govt can standardise curriculums. Gone are the days where people could labor all their lives in a manufacturing job and didn't need an education. The US can only compete in the world market through innovation and high-value added industries. To do that, you need an education population - not just pockets of educated people.

But I think the opponents of a cabinet level department would argue that the federal government's education policies could be administered just as effectively through a sub-cabinet office in another department, such as Health and Human Services. There was a time, in the Reagan administration for example, when this argument was cover for getting the feds out of education. Now, however, the right is very much in favor of "tougher" education standards so now the argument is based on eliminating a level of bureaucracy.

SPARTY sent me an email giving several reasons why the Dept. of Ed. is a good thing. I'll list them here, but I don't think any of those is particularly compelling.

Here' my question: Judging by the wailing I hear about "no child left behind" and federal requirements for this and that, I wonder if a return to more state centered programs might result in a more reasonably guided program of holding adults and their children to the higher standards Irene was discussing.

1) Lots of kids have crackheads for parents2) Teachers are underpaid3) Teacher education is atrocious. No other profession throws newly-minted members into the deep end like our schools do4) Bad teachers don't get fired, but award-winning teachers get laid off for budget reasons.

Whether we have a federal department or not is largely irrelevant. However, the poor quality of public education in some states is arguably a violation of kids' civil rights.

After years of thinking about and studying this issue I'm not sure I have any answers, but Scot's thoughts are good discussion starters. My guess is that the performance of students in the U.S. is fairly closely related to the social cleavages in our society, and I've never figured out what schools can do about that. Teacher education has never been very riguous, although things are changing. At Michigan State, for example, those admitted to the teacher ed program face a five year program, including a full year of student teaching, which is far superior to the 10 week student teaching experience I had. As for "good" and "bad" teachers - that issue is much more complex than is commonly supposed. There was a time when I fit into the "award winning" category and I was never sure if that had any validity.

The good/bad teacher quandary bothers me a lot. I had a principal who told me that if it had been up to him, he would have not put me on tenure. Then the same guy ranked me in the top quartile as a teacher. I was unruly at meetings, rebellious about silly rules, and inclined to be bipolar. Figure it out.

However, I didn't raise the question I raised as a teacher oriented question, but as a question of the cost of government. The Republicans want to wipe out the US Dept. of Ed., and in our state, the legislature wants to slash education programs for financial reasons. Where, how, what should money be spent on education to improve things?

There is a great book I just started reading that makes some interesting points about the role of the federal gov't in education. The Death and Life of the Great American School System, by Diane Raveitch, is definitely worth the time. Seems to me, there ought to be some level of federal involvement, especially concerning curriculum content. When did that become so much less important than "accountablity" (a.k.a. testing)? Although, when I think about it, do I really trust anyone in the federal gov't enough to determine what our children should be taught? This, coming from someone who taught in the public school system for 15 years in 3 different states before deciding to homeschool.

"Although, when I think about it, do I really trust anyone in the federal gov't enough to determine what our children should be taught?"

Yes. We trust them with the fucking nukes, and apparently with computer networks that can read all your e-mail, listen to all your phone calls and associate it all to your credit card purchases. But all of a sudden, our country can't come up with anyone qualified to set math curriculum standards? That beggars belief.

Oh dear. I've been told that swearing is lazy English - that instead of an expletive you should pick an adjective that describes precisely what you want to say - there's lots to choose from in the English language. However, the f-word sometimes just says it all, plus you get to let out a little burst of emotion.

Definitely a person/persons with NO educational background or experience should make all the decisions about how and what should be taught. The new school leader (not called pricipals in Charters)at the school where I was is a business major with no educational background or training. Be interesting to see how that works. The LAST people to ask anything about what and how to teach should be the persons in the trenches. Those people who actually trained, have a love of learning and children and want time to teach reasoning, reading and debate.